In human resources or Industrial psychology, 360-degree feedback, also known as multi-rater feedback, multisource feedback, or multisource assessment, is feedback that comes from all around an employee. "360" refers to the 360 degrees in a circle, with an individual figuratively in the centre of the circle. Feedback is provided by subordinates, peers, and supervisors. It also includes a self-assessment and, in some cases, feedback from external sources such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. It may be contrasted with "upward feedback," where managers are given feedback by their direct reports, or a "traditional performance appraisal," where the employees are most often reviewed only by their managers.
The results from 360-degree feedback are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan training and development. Results are also used by some organizations in making administrative decisions, such as pay or promotion. When this is the case, the 360 assessment is for evaluation purposes, and is sometimes called a "360-degree review." However, there is a great deal of controversy as to whether 360-degree feedback should be used exclusively for development purposes, or should be used for appraisal purposes as well (Waldman et al., 1998). There is also controversy regarding whether 360-degree feedback improves employee performance, and it has even been suggested that it may decrease shareholder value (Pfau & Kay, 2002).
Contents |
The German Military first began gathering feedback from multiple sources in order to evaluate performance during World War II (Fleenor & Prince, 1997). Also during this time period, others explored the use of multi-rater feedback via the concept of T-groups.
One of the earliest recorded uses of surveys to gather information about employees occurred in the 1950s at Esso Research and Engineering Company (Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, & Pollman, 1997). From there, the idea of 360-degree feedback gained momentum, and by the 1990s most human resources and organization development professionals understood the concept. The problem was that collecting and collating the feedback demanded a paper-based effort including either complex manual calculations or lengthy delays. The first led to despair on the part of practitioners; the second to a gradual erosion of commitment by recipients.
Multi-rater feedback use steadily increased in popularity, due largely to the use of the Internet in conducting web-based surveys (Atkins & Wood, 2002). Today, studies suggest that over one-third of U.S. companies use some type of multi-source feedback (Bracken, Timmereck, & Church, 2001a). Others claim that this estimate is closer to 90% of all Fortune 500 firms (Edwards & Ewen, 1996). In recent years, Internet-based services have become the norm, with a growing menu of useful features (e.g., multi languages, comparative reporting, and aggregate reporting) (Bracken, Summers, & Fleenor, 1998).
A study on the patterns of rater accuracy shows that length of time that a rater has known the person being rated has the most significant effect on the accuracy of a 360-degree review. The study shows that subjects in the group “known for one to three years” are the most accurate, followed by “known for less than one year,” followed by “known for three to five years” and the least accurate being “known for more than five years.” The study concludes that the most accurate ratings come from knowing the person long enough to get past first impressions, but not so long as to begin to generalize favorably (Eichinger, 2004).
It has been suggested that multi-rater assessments often generate conflicting opinions, and that there may be no way to determine whose feedback is accurate (Vinson, 1996). Studies have also indicated that self-ratings are generally significantly higher than the ratings of others (Lublin, 1994; Yammarino & Atwater, 1993; Nowack, 1992).
Several studies (Hazucha et al., 1993; London & Wohlers, 1991; Walker & Smither, 1999) indicate that the use of 360-degree feedback helps people improve performance. In a 5-year Walker and Smither (1999) study, no improvement in overall ratings was found between the 1st and 2nd year, but higher scores were noted between 2nd and 3rd and 3rd and 4th years. A study by Reilly et al. (1996) found that performance increased between the 1st and 2nd administrations, and sustained this improvement 2 years later. Additional studies show that 360 feedback may be predictive of future performance (Maylett & Riboldi, 2007).
Some authors maintain that 360 processes are much too complex to make blanket generalizations about their effectiveness (Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001b; Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005). Smither et al. (2005) suggest, "We therefore think that it is time for researchers and practitioners to ask, 'Under what conditions and for whom is multisource feedback likely to be beneficial?' (rather than asking 'Does multisource feedback work?') (p. 60)." Their meta-analysis of 24 longitudinal studies looks at individual and organizational moderators that point to many potential determinants of behavior change, including positive feedback orientation, positive reactions to feedback, goal setting, and taking action.
Bracken et al. (2001b) and Bracken and Timmreck (2001) focus on process features that are likely to also have major effects in creating behavior change and offer best practices in those areas. Some of these factors have been researched and been shown to have significant impact. Greguras and Robie (1998) document how the number of raters used in each rater category (direct report, peer, manager) affects the reliability of the feedback, with direct reports being the least reliable and therefore requiring more participation. Multiple pieces of research (Bracken & Paul, 1993; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2006; Caputo & Roch, 2009; English, Rose, & McClellan, 2009) have demonstrated that the response scale can have a major effect on the results, and some response scales are indeed better than others. Goldsmith and Underhill (2001) report the powerful influence of the participant behavior of following up with raters to discuss their results. Other potentially powerful moderators of behavior change include how raters are selected, manager approval, instrument quality (reliability and validity), rater training and orientation, participant training, manager (supervisor) training, coaching, integration with HR systems, and accountability (Bracken et al., 2001b).
Others authors state that the use of multi-rater assessment does not improve company performance. One 2001 study found that 360-degree feedback was associated with a 10.6 percent decrease in market value, while another study concludes that "there is no data showing that [360-degree feedback] actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases grievances, or is superior to forced ranking and standard performance appraisal systems. It sounds good, but there is no proof it works." (Pfau & Kay, 2002) Similarly, Seifert, Yukl, and McDonald (2003) state that there is little evidence that the multi-rater process results in change.
Additional studies (Maylett, 2005) found no correlation between an employee's multi-rater assessment scores and his or her top-down performance appraisal scores (provided by the person's supervisor), and advised that although multi-rater feedback can be effectively used for appraisal, care should be taken in its implementation (Maylett, 2009). This research suggests that 360-degree feedback and performance appraisals get at different outcomes, and that both 360-degree feedback and traditional performance appraisals should be used in evaluating overall performance.[1]